CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.0 ALTERNATIVES The 2010 Stevensville Airport Master Plan contained five (5) airside development options designed to meet projected demands. Each of the options from the Master Plan was reviewed for consideration as an alternative for this Environmental Assessment. In addition, this Environmental Assessment will consider the No-Action non-development alternative. The six alternatives evaluated in this chapter are as follows: Non-Development Alternative No Action; Development Alternative A Widen existing Runway 12-30 and extend Runway-12 Development Alternative B Rotate Runway 12-30 orientation by 3-degrees, widen the full length runway and extend Runway-12 Development Alternative C Widen existing Runway 12-30 and extend Runway-30 Development Alternative D Rotate Runway 12-30 orientation by 2-degrees, widen full length runway and extend Runway-30 Development Alternative E Construct new 75 x 4,800 runway with orientation of 14-32 Each development alternative above includes extending the partial parallel taxiway to become a full length parallel taxiway. This also includes a new edge lighting system associated with the taxiway. Each alternative also includes a new Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) for each runway end, as well as a new Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS). 3.1 NON-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE No Action The No Action Alternative would maintain the airfield in its present condition. There would not be a runway extension or widening. This will result in the airport having a non-standard runway width for a RDC Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft. Also, the full length parallel taxiway would not be developed. The current runway length accommodates less than the minimum FAA recommendation of 95% of the small aircraft fleet. The current runway length combined with the steep slope (maximum FAA allowable gradient) presents a safety concern to departing and arriving pilots. The current pavement section and existing runway edge lighting system are in dire need of reconstruction and replacement as they will both be in complete failure in the very near future. Therefore, the result of the No Action alternative would be the inability of the airport to satisfy FAA design standards for an RDC Category B, Design Group II Small aircraft and FAA recommendations for length to accommodate 95% of the small aircraft fleet. Because of the aviation activity that has occurred and is expected to continue at the airport, some improvements will continue to be needed such as reconstructing the runway s existing pavement section and replacing the airfield s existing electrical system. Page 24
The region has experienced strong growth in all socioeconomic categories over the past few decades. Forecasts indicate this trend will likely continue throughout and beyond the long term planning horizon. The Town of Stevensville has a vested interest in improving airport facilities for all users. Without a commitment to ongoing improvement of the airport, regular users and future users of the airport would not be able to maximize use of the airport s air transportation capabilities. 3.1.1 CONCLUSION The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this Environmental Assessment. Regardless, NEPA regulations require the FAA to consider a no-action alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). This no-action alternative serves to describe the current and future state of the affected environment without considering the potential impacts of the Proposed Action or project. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES FROM THE 2010 MASTER PLAN The 2010 Master Plan identified five (5) development alternatives designed to meet projected aviation demands, comply with FAA design standards, and improve public safety. The main components for each development alternative of the 2010 Master Plan included the following: Increase runway length from 3,800-feet to 4,800-feet Increase runway width from 60-feet to 75-feet Extend partial parallel taxiway to a full length parallel taxiway Upgrade RDC from Category B, Design Group I, Small aircraft to Category B, Design Group II aircraft Increase the dimensions of the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) to Category B, Design Group II standards Analyze approach and departure procedures for upgraded runway classification Analyze land acquisitions to accommodate new approach and departure procedures and obstruction removals The Master Plan then analyzed each of these components in five (5) different development alternatives which are described below: Development Alternative A: Extend Runway-12 by 1,000-feet in order to achieve 95% of small aircraft fleet. Increase runway width by 15-feet in order to achieve Category B, Design Group II standards. There is substantial land acquisition associated with Runway- 30 to improve approach/departure procedures and eliminate aviation obstructions (land acquisition on the Runway-30 end is not included in proposed action as explained in section 3.4.2). Development Alternative B: Extend Runway-12 by 1,000-feet in order to achieve 95% of small aircraft fleet. Increase runway width by 15-feet in order to achieve Category B, Design Group II standards. Modify the current runway orientation by rotating alignment 3-degrees to the west about the new Runway-12 end. There is substantial land acquisition associated with Runway-30 to improve approach/departure procedures and eliminate aviation obstructions. Page 25
Development Alternative C: Extend Runway-30 by 1,000-feet in order to achieve 95% of small aircraft fleet. Increase runway width by 15-feet in order to achieve Category B, Design Group II standards. There is substantial land acquisition associated with Runway- 30 to achieve 1,000-foot extension and to improve approach/departure procedures and eliminate aviation obstructions. Development Alternative D: Extend Runway-30 by 1,000-feet in order to achieve 95% of small aircraft fleet. Increase runway width by 15-feet in order to achieve Category B, Design Group II standards. Modify the current runway orientation by rotating alignment 2-degrees to the west about the current Runway-12 end. There is substantial land acquisition associated with Runway-30 to achieve 1,000-foot extension and to improve approach/departure procedures and eliminate aviation obstructions. Development Alternative E: A complete reconstruction of the entire airfield. New runway orientation would become 14-32 with 1,000-feet in order to achieve 95% of small aircraft fleet and 75-foot with in order to achieve Category B, Design Group II standards. Modify the current runway orientation by rotating alignment 2-degrees to the west. There is substantial land acquisition associated with the new runway orientation and approach/departure protections. 3.3 ELIMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES All development alternatives from the 2010 Master Plan were analyzed per the purpose and need objectives of Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment. Any development alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need of this EA, or that were considered to be unrealistic alternatives, were eliminated from consideration in the master planning process. It should be mentioned that a significant change to the FAA s Advisory Circulars was made on February 26, 2014. This change created a new design category within the Runway Design Code. This new category is for small or light aircraft (less than 12,500 pounds) within the Category B, Design Group II designation. At the time the 2010 Master Plan was created, there was no designation for small aircraft within the Category B, Design Group II design standards. This change does not affect the purpose and need of this Environmental Assessment, nor does it diminish the efforts of the 2010 Master Plan. Rather, the new design category allows the Proposed Action to be developed for small aircraft instead of upgrading the airfield classification to large aircraft. Through the planning process of this EA and evaluation of all the development alternatives in the 2010 Master Plan, it was determined that four of the five development alternatives from the 2010 Master Plan were no longer considered as realistic, or financially obtainable alternatives, and thereby eliminated from consideration in this EA. The table below identifies the development alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration with the EA, as well as detail the reasoning behind the elimination. Page 26
Development Alternatives Eliminated From Consideration Development Alternative Reasons for Elimination Alternative B Extend RW-12 by 1,000-ft and rotate RW orientation 3 west Alternative C Extend RW-30 by 1,000-ft Alternative D Extend RW-30 by 1,000-ft and rotate RW orientation 2 west Socioeconomic impact of relocating one residential property due to the runway rotation. Additional costs and time associated with negotiations, acquisition and relocation of residential property per the federal Uniform Act and FAA policies. Requires the removal of existing structures and obstructions (trees) on the property after acquisition. Requires additional extension of the existing taxiway to RW-30 and the mid-field taxiway due to the RW rotation Requires the demolition of existing RW. Socioeconomic impact of relocating eight residential properties due to the RW-30 extension. Additional costs and time associated with negotiations, acquisition and relocation of residential properties per the federal Uniform Act and FAA policies. Requires the removal of existing structures and obstructions (trees) on the properties after acquisition. Requires the closure and removal of a portion of Hollibaugh Road. Requires the relocation of two residential driveways due to the Hollibaugh Road closure. Requires the removal and relocation of a significant portion of the existing Wildlife Fence. Socioeconomic impact of relocating nine residential properties due to the RW-30 extension. Additional costs and time associated with negotiations, acquisition and relocation of residential properties per the federal Uniform Act and FAA policies. Requires the removal of existing structures and obstructions (trees) on the properties after acquisition. Requires the closure and removal of a portion of Hollibaugh Road. Requires the relocation of two residential driveways due to the Hollibaugh Road closure. Requires the removal and relocation of a significant portion of the existing Wildlife Fence. Requires additional extension of the existing taxiway to RW-30 and the mid-field taxiway due to the RW rotation Requires the demolition of existing RW. Alternative E Socioeconomic impact of relocating five residential properties due to the RW-30 extension. Page 27
Development Alternatives Eliminated From Consideration Development Alternative Reasons for Elimination Construct new RW 14-32 and all appurtenant airfield features Additional costs and time associated with negotiations, acquisition and relocation of residential properties per the federal Uniform Act and FAA policies. Requires the removal of existing structures and obstructions (trees) on the properties after acquisition. Requires the reconstruction of 4,000-ft of Airport Road. Requires the installation of a new perimeter Wildlife Fence. Requires the demolition of the existing RW. Requires the partial demolition of the existing TW and aircraft parking apron. Requires construction of new aircraft parking apron, taxilane system and new hangars. Requires the construction of a full parallel TW. 3.4 ALTERNATIVES BEING EVALUATED Two alternatives have been carried forward for a more detailed analysis in this Environmental Assessment. Those alternatives are: Non-Development Alternative No Action; Development Alternative A Widen existing Runway 12-30 and extend Runway-12 The No Action Alternative is being analyzed because it creates a baseline comparison for the potential environmental impacts of Development Alternative A. Development Alternative A accomplishes the purpose and need objectives of this EA and does so in the most economical and least impactful approach available. 3.4.1 No Action Alternative The No Action alternative does not include any improvements to the airport and would maintain the airfield in its current condition. The existing runway s dimensional layout would remain unchanged from its length of 3,800-feet and width of 60-feet. The current RDC would remain as a Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft design standard and would result in a non-standard runway for the airport. Also, the parallel taxiway expansion would not be developed. However, under the No Action alternative, the Town of Stevensville would still be required to maintain the airport s current facilities at FAA minimum standards. This will ultimately include replacing the existing electrical system for the airfield, as well as rehabilitating the pavement section of the runway. The No Action alternative does not address the length and width deficiencies of the existing runway as discussed in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, which means that it would not meet the standards for a RDC Category B, Design Group II, Small airport. Page 28
Page 29 Existing Airport Layout
3.4.2 Development Alternative A Widen Existing Runway 12-30 and Extend Runway-12 Development Alternative A would upgrade the RDC to Category B, Design Group II small aircraft design standard. This would be done through a runway extension to the northwest (RW-12) and a widening of the runway. The current runway centerline alignment would remain on its current alignment. Actions associated with Development Alternative A include: Widen RW 12-30 by 15-feet for a total width of 75 ; Extend RW-12 by 1,000-feet for a total runway length of 4,800 ; Reconstruct existing 60 x 3,800 pavement section for RW 12-30; Re-grade existing ground obstructions within the RSA and OFA; Replace the existing airfield electrical system; Replace the existing Medium Intensity Runway Lights; Replace the existing RW-12 PAPI; Install a new PAPI for RW-30; Install AWOS; Extend the partial length parallel TW-A to the new end of RW-12; Install new taxiway edge lighting system Modify existing RNAV (GPS)-A procedure to reflect new runway end coordinates. It should be noted that Alternative A in the Stevensville Airport Master Plan included elements that are no longer relevant. For the purposes of this EA, Alternative A is limited to the items noted above. For example, the land acquisition associated with Runway 30 is not being considered at this time due to the change in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A allowing for an RDC of Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft (weighing less than 12,500 lbs). Because of this change, the Runway Protection Zone and runway approach no longer need to be enlarged or adjusted. The following exhibit portrays the airport layout under Development Alternative A. The Proposed Action (Alternative A) will upgrade the airport to meet the design and safety requirements for the critical aircraft that is currently using the airport today (Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft). Upgrade of the airport to Category B, Design Group II, large aircraft (12,500 lbs and over) standards, as identified in the Master Plan and ALP as the ultimate design group, is not included in the proposed action. Should future activity at the airport justify an upgrade to accommodate aircraft 12,500 lbs and over, a new environmental process will be required. Page 30
Page 31 Development Alternative A
Alternative A would not require any land acquisition or residential relocations, nor would it require the removal of any ground or airspace obstructions that may be located on private property. All objectives of this EA s purpose and need would be accomplished within the current airport property boundary, and within the existing airport perimeter fence. This development alternative alleviates all immediate safety concerns on the airfield and meets the minimum runway length requirements of the FAA at the 95% of the small aircraft fleet, bringing the airport to RDC Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft standards as justified by the critical aircraft currently using the airport. The project costs (at planning stage*) associated with Development Alternative A are estimated at $4.96 million. The estimated project costs include (but are not limited to) the following: Widen RW 12-30 by 15-feet for a total width of 75 ; Extend RW-12 by 1,000-feet for a total runway length of 4,800 ; Reconstruct existing 60 x 3,800 pavement section for RW 12-30; Re-grade existing ground obstructions within the RSA and OFA; Replace the existing airfield electrical system; Replace the existing Medium Intensity Runway Lights; Replace the existing RW-12 PAPI; Install a new PAPI for RW-30; Install AWOS; Extend the partial length parallel TW-A to the new end of RW-12; Install new taxiway edge lighting system. The estimated project costs are summarized in the table below. Development Alternative A Estimated Project Costs* 90% FAA Participation 10% Sponsor Match Total Project Cost RW 12-30 Widening, Lengthening, Reconstruction $3,622,500 $402,500 $4,025,000 TW-A Extension $841,500 $93,500 $935,000 Total $4,464,000 $496,000 $4,960,000 3.5 SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The No Action Alternative would not produce any improvements on the airfield with exception to continued maintenance of the facility. This alternative does not address existing safety concerns, or meet the purpose and need of this Environmental Assessment. Development Alternative A does satisfy the purpose and need of this Environmental Assessment. It mitigates existing safety concerns, meets the FAA s design standards, and satisfies the FAA s minimum runway length recommendations for 95% of small aircraft fleet. This alternative Page 32
upgrades the RDC to Category B, Design Group II, Small aircraft all within the existing property boundary and perimeter fence of the airport. Therefore, the Town Council for the Town of Stevensville has formally selected Development Alternative A as its Proposed Action. 3.6 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE By regulation, a federal agency is required to identify a Preferred Alternative as defined in CEQ s 40 CFR 1502.14. As defined in CEQ s 40 Most Asked Questions Concerning CEW s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, an agency s preferred alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. This Environmental Assessment provides a detailed analysis of the No Action alternative and Development Alternative A. Development Alternative A has been selected as the FAA s Preferred Alternative based on the analysis presented in this document and this Alternative s ability to meet the purpose and need of this Environmental Assessment. Page 33